JUDGMENT : Tapabrata Chakraborty J. 1. Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) has preferred the instant appeal against an order dated 13th May, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.790 of 2014 by which the respondents in the writ petition were directed to grant promotion to the writ petitioner “in terms of the office order dated 22nd December, 2008 along with consequential benefits and back wages but without any interest and also further promotion in terms of the office orders dated 20th September, 2013 and 25th September, 2013 along with all consequential benefits and back wages but without interest”. 2. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in passing a direct order towards grant of promotion to the writ petitioner, being the respondent no.1 herein, being oblivious of the fact that an employee has no fundamental right to avail promotion save and except a right to be considered for promotion, in accordance with the relevant rules. The learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre (hereinafter referred to as CCC) of CIL. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Clause of 4.7 of CCC pertaining to eligibility norms for promotion, he submits that the promotions of departmental executives are required to be determined step by step according to the channel of promotion subject to minimum qualification and minimum period of 3 years service in a particular cadre. As per Clause 4.8 of CCC for promotion beyond E-3 grade the criteria of promotion would be on merit-cum-seniority. 3. Placing reliance upon an office order dated 19/27 June, 1979, he submits that an order of promotion can be issued only after a vigilance clearance and the officers, against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, can only be considered for promotion after completion of the proceedings and complete exoneration from the charges and in accordance with the positions assigned to them in the select list and that pay upon such promotion shall be fixed notionally by allowing the intervening period during which the officers could not be promoted due to pending departmental enquiry and that no arrears would be admissible to such officers. Being oblivious of the said provisions, the learned Single Judge erred in law in directing the appellants to grant promotion to the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and back wages. 4. Drawing the attention of this Court to a document dated 18th June, 2013 annexed at page 156 of the paper book, Mr. Banerjee submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as DPC) stipulated a cut off date as 30th September, 2012 within which an officer in E-5 grade has to complete 3 years of service for promotion to E-6 grade. The writ petitioner, having not rendered 3 years of service in E-5 grade, is not entitled to be promoted to E-6 grade. In support of his arguments Mr. Banerjee has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- a. Orissa Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. and another vs. Narasingha Charan Mohanty and others, reported in 1999 (4) SLR 423 ; b. State of Haryana and others vs. O.P. Gupta and others, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 533 ; c. Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346 . 5. Per contra, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, being the respondent no.1 herein, submits that the respondent fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and came within the zone of consideration for promotion and was accordingly promoted from the post of Senior Accounts Officer in E-3 grade to the post of Deputy Finance Manager in E-4 grade, as would be explicit from the office order dated 22nd September, 2008. In the midst thereof, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him through issuance of a charge sheet on 12th September, 2007 and though the enquiring authority exonerated him from the alleged charges on 21st April, 2008, the proforma respondent no.2 herein, acting as the disciplinary authority, disagreed with the finding of the enquiring authority and passed an order on 24th June, 2010 imposing a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. After the date of expiry of the currency period of the punishment, the respondent was promoted from the post of Deputy Finance Manager in E-4 grade to the post of Manager (Finance) in E-5 grade with notional seniority and notional fixation of pay with effect from 24th June, 2011, as would be explicit from the office order dated 12th November, 2012. Subsequent thereto, the appellant did not consider the claim of the respondent for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Finance) in E-6 grade, as would be explicit from the office order dated 20th September, 2013 on a purported plea of pendency of the departmental proceeding since in the midst thereof the initial order passed by the disciplinary authority on 24th June, 2010 was confirmed in a statutory appeal on 9th September, 2011 which was challenged by a writ petition, being W.P. No.76 of 2012. The learned Court by an order dated 25th June, 2013 set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 9th September, 2011 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for re-adjudication. Pursuant thereto the appellate authority passed the final order on 19th December, 2013 by which the penalty of “reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect” was moderated to “caution” with an advice to the respondent to be more careful in dealing with cases in future. From such factual scenario it is explicit that as the respondent was found to be eligible and suitable, promotion was granted to him in E-4 grade by the office order dated 22nd September, 2008 but posting was withheld. Subsequent thereto, as the respondent was again found eligible and suitable for promotion to E-4 grade, he was granted such promotion by the office order dated 12th November, 2012 but he was granted notional fixation of pay with effect from 24th June, 2011, i.e., the date of expiry of currency period of punishment. Surprisingly thereafter, the promotion of the respondent to E-6 grade was withheld though officers similarly situated with him were awarded such promotion by office order dated 20th September, 2013. 6. According to him, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the authorities to grant promotion in the respective grades, being E-4 grade, E-5 grade and E-6 grade, with all consequential benefits and back wages. 6. According to him, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the authorities to grant promotion in the respective grades, being E-4 grade, E-5 grade and E-6 grade, with all consequential benefits and back wages. There is no illegality in such direction inasmuch as the authorities themselves declared the respondent to be entitled to promotion to the respective grades, as would be explicit from the office orders dated 22nd December, 2008, 12th November, 2012 and 20th September, 2013. 7. He further submits that the respondent was granted notional seniority and notional fixation of pay in the post of Manager (Finance) in E-5 grade with effect from 24th June, 2011 since the currency period of initial punishment awarded to him expired on the said date. Subsequent thereto, the order of punishment was moderated to “caution”, which is not a punishment under the relevant rules and that as such the respondent became entitled to all consequential benefits. 8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the office orders dated 22nd September, 2008 and 20th September, 2013, Mr. Majumder submits that one Swapan Ghosh, junior to the respondent and working under Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL), was promoted from E-3 grade to E-6 grade within a period of 5 years and that while granting promotions the authorities themselves did not apply any condition to the effect that all officers are mandatorily required to serve at least for 3 years in the respective grades prior to promotion. 9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 10. There is no dispute that the respondent was found eligible and suitable for promotion by the authorities and accordingly he was promoted from the post of Senior Accounts Officer in E-3 grade to the post of Deputy Finance Manager in E-4 grade and thereafter to the post of Manager (Finance) in E-5 grade. His name was not included in the office order dated 20th September, 2013 for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Finance) in E6 grade since at that juncture the statutory appeal was pending and final order was passed in the same on 19th December, 2013. His name was not included in the office order dated 20th September, 2013 for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Finance) in E6 grade since at that juncture the statutory appeal was pending and final order was passed in the same on 19th December, 2013. In the backdrop of the said admitted facts the learned Single Judge rightly directed payment of all consequential benefits along with back wages to the respondent from the respective dates of promotion since the respondent was prevented by the authorities from serving in the respective promotional posts and for the laches attributable to the authorities, the respondent cannot be made to suffer. 11. The argument of Mr. Banerjee to the effect that the learned Single Judge did not consider the provisions of CCC and did not notice the facts that the respondent did not fulfil the eligibility norms for promotion and that the promotion is required to be fixed notionally by allowing the intervening period during which the officers could not be promoted due to pending departmental enquiry, was not advanced on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge. By way of an affidavit-in-opposition it was only urged by the authorities that the writ petitioner could not be considered for promotion with effect from the dates claimed by him since the appellate authority did not exonerate the writ petitioner completely vide order dated 19th December, 2013. 12. Records reveal that one Swapan Ghosh, junior to the respondent was promoted from E-3 grade to E-6 grade within a period of 5 years and that as such the argument of Mr. Banerjee to the effect that all officers are required to serve at least for 3 years in the respective grades prior to promotion, is not acceptable to this Court. 13. The judgment in the case of State of Haryana and Others (supra) was delivered taking into consideration an order passed in a prior litigation by which the government was directed to prepare a seniority list in accordance with the relevant rules and it was also made clear that promotions already made shall not be disturbed. Such direction attained finality and was accepted by the parties. After preparation of such seniority list and promotion, the writ petitioners claimed arrear salaries but such claim was denied as the petitioners accepted the earlier direction. Such direction attained finality and was accepted by the parties. After preparation of such seniority list and promotion, the writ petitioners claimed arrear salaries but such claim was denied as the petitioners accepted the earlier direction. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts since in the instant case the respondent was found suitable for promotion and his name was incorporated in the select list and for denial of posting the respondent could not render service in the promotional post and he was sought to be penalised on the basis of an order passed in the disciplinary proceeding which was subsequently moderated and the respondent was only cautioned, which Mr. Banerjee admits is not a punishment. In the case of Orissa Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. and another (supra) the employees could not earn experience, as required under the relevant rules, for being accommodated to the promotional post and as such they were denied actual benefits. In the instant case experience of 3 years was not a statutory requirement and the authorities themselves did not adhere to and apply such condition for effecting promotion. The judgment delivered in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) and others (supra) was delivered in the backdrop of a dispute among direct recruits and promotees and as such the said judgment has no manner of application in the instant case. 14. The learned Single Judge, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and passed an order fortified with cogent reasons and we do not find any error in the order impugned. The impugned order also does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 15. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the connected vacating application, being G.A. 2365 of 2016 has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed. 16. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. Later Learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks stay of the judgment delivered today. We are not inclined to grant stay for the reasons mentioned in the said judgment. Stay is, therefore, refused.